Julie Minns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) for securing this very important debate, which I know will be of interest to constituents of mine who find themselves victims of fleecehold. Across the country, too many people are now buying homes on freehold estates and then finding themselves let down by developers and estate management companies that fail to deliver the services they promised. Developers build these estates, sell the homes and then, despite levying management charges, often fail to maintain the essential infrastructure that residents rely on every day, whether that is roads, drainage systems, which we have just heard about, or shared green spaces. I have seen this at first hand in the experience of residents of Moorside Drive, a development by Gleeson Homes. My constituent Daniel first contacted me in July last year after purchasing his home in October 2024, when he had been assured that the outstanding works would be completed by March 2025. That deadline slipped to the spring, and then the summer; as things stand, residents have yet to receive any meaningful communication about when the work will finally be completed. The problems they are facing are significant: the road serving the estate has deteriorated and remains unfinished; the shared green spaces that were promised as part of the development have still not been delivered; and commitments to enhance and protect biodiversity have yet to be fulfilled. Communication with residents has also fallen well below an acceptable standard. Daniel tells me that he was given no notice before work began directly outside his family home, and I have heard that traffic management measures were not properly put in place during other works, creating unnecessary disruption and safety concerns. Landscaping, meanwhile, cannot be completed until the roads are finished, and unresolved drainage issues continue to affect a number of residents on the estate. This is not like being sold a faulty item that can simply be returned to the shop. These are people’s homes—the places where they expect to build their lives, raise their families and feel secure. When developers and management companies fail to honour their commitments, it is residents who are left living with the consequences. That is why reform and regulation is so important. Homeowners deserve transparency, accountability and effective regulation of the companies responsible for managing their estates. As we have heard already this afternoon, homeowners should not have to fight for basic standards of maintenance or chase endlessly for information about works that should have been completed months earlier. I very much welcome the work of this Labour Government to strengthen the rights of people living on managed estates. These reforms have the potential to deliver greater fairness, improve accountability and ensure that homeowners receive the standards of service they have paid for. People who invest in a home deserve confidence that those responsible for maintaining their communities will fulfil their obligations. It is only right that we continue to strengthen protections for homeowners, and ensure that managing agents and developers are held to account.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Civil Service Jobs: Relocation · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will know, because she represents a constituency not dissimilar from Carlisle, that our post-industrial towns and cities have ageing populations. In Carlisle, only 7% of the population is aged between 18 to 24, and the next smallest group is those aged 25 to 34. Will the Minister ensure that future civil service relocations give particular consideration to smaller cities and towns with ageing populations, so that we retain our young people, attract working-age populations, and support the long-term prosperity of those communities?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Civil Service Jobs: Relocation · Hansard source

  More

  8. What steps he has taken to support the relocation of civil service roles.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Neuropsychiatric Conditions: PANS and PANDAS · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for introducing the debate so well. It is always a pleasure in this place when I discover that I have something in common with Members from across the House. In recent months, the hon. Lady and I have discovered that we share an interest and passion for Jane Austen and hard agree that the BBC 1995 production of “Persuasion” is by far the superior, but more importantly, that we share an interest and desire to improve the diagnosis, understanding and clinical treatment of people of all ages who are living with PANS/PANDAS. I first became aware of PANS/PANDAS when my constituent Joanne came to see me about her son Jake shortly after my election. Jake has lived with PANS/PANDAS for more than six years. For a period of time, treatment was effective, and NHS continuing healthcare funding enabled Jake to access the care of a specialist immunologist. However, despite the progress that had been made, the family have since faced repeated challenges in securing the treatment and funding, resulting in uncertainty, stress and significant personal expense. I therefore appeal to North East and North Cumbria integrated care board to please help urgently resolve these issues, and I have an outstanding query with the ICB on exactly this point. Joanne has worked tirelessly to advocate for her son, yet she continues to encounter delays, poor communication, a lack of clarity, and uncertainty about funding—a story all too typical of families trying to support a family member living with PANS/PANDAS. While this case is deeply personal, it also highlights the wider challenges faced by these families. Too often, parents like Joanne find themselves navigating complex systems, spending years seeking access to appropriate care and treatment, all while battling for recognition of their child’s condition. It was thanks to Joanne that I had the privilege of meeting members of the PANS PANDAS youth board when they visited Parliament in April. As has been said, they shared their personal stories with me and other parliamentarians. I welcome them again in Parliament today. I welcome the Government’s work with the royal colleges, specialist clinical bodies and PANS PANDAS UK on the development of clinical guidelines. In her remarks, will the Minister indicate when the Government expect to publish the first UK clinical guidelines for PANS and PANDAS? The guidelines should, I hope, result in a clearer and more consistent framework and recording of these conditions. Without an official diagnostic pathway and reliable data collection, it is difficult to understand how many children and young people are affected, the scale of the unmet need, or to ensure that appropriate services are available. Better recognition and data would therefore not only support future research and service planning, but help ensure that families like Jake’s receive timely, co-ordinated and compassionate care.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Polling Stations: Blind and Visually Impaired Voters · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his answer. Responses to a survey by the Royal National Institute of Blind People at the time of the last general election showed that 73% of people who are blind and visually impaired did not know that those adjustments were available at polling stations. I have tabled an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill that would require those adjustments to be made available. In the meantime, could he set out what more the commission can do ahead of the next elections to ensure that blind and visually impaired people can vote independently and in secret?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement today, and I also welcome the remarks of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). I agree that all too often when we debate these topics, it is in the context of a tragedy, and it is refreshing that we are here today celebrating some fantastic news for young people in care. The remarks from both Front Benchers stand in contrast to the disgusting remarks from a Reform councillor last year, who described young people in care as “evil”. I think we can all be unified in condemning that view. The Minister will know, because we share the same local authority, that Cumberland has made great strides in recent years in achieving exactly what we want to achieve, by ensuring that young people have those stable relationships. I commend the work of the Family Rights Group in this area—I should declare that I did some work with it prior to entering this place. Can the Minister share with the House his ambition for how other councils, such as Cumberland under the leadership of Councillor Emma Williamson, can do what Cumberland has done in a few years during this Parliament?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As the current Youth Parliament draws to the end of its term, can I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for your continued support of our Youth Parliament? Earlier this week, I met Bobby Forbes, who is Cumbria’s Member of Youth Parliament. Yesterday, the Select Committee that he chairs published a report on reform of personal, social, health and economic education. As this Government are rightly extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds, could the Leader of the House please explain to us as Members of this Parliament how we could discuss the recommendations of the Youth Select Committee’s report?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Public Baths and Lidos · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for securing this excellent debate. I begin by paying tribute to Kitty Wilkinson, the woman to whom we owe a debt of thanks for giving us modern public baths. In 1842, thanks to her determined advocacy, Liverpool opened the first combined public washhouse and baths in the United Kingdom since Roman times. Crucially, she inspired national interest and, just a few years later, Parliament passed the Baths and Washhouses Act 1846, which empowered local authorities across Britain to build public bathing and laundry facilities. However, as we discuss the impact of public baths, we should remember that they were never conceived as leisure facilities, but as tools to improve the health of working people. Indeed, the 1846 Act does not mention swimming at all. Carlisle’s public baths opened in 1884, funded by the proceeds of the municipal gasworks. However, the funds did not stretch to including Turkish baths, which had become popular—again, not as leisure facilities—thanks to the work of Richard Barter and David Urquhart, a doctor and a diplomat who extolled the therapeutic benefits of hot and cold treatments and drove the expansion of Turkish baths across the UK during the 19th century. Turkish baths catered for the working man, for it was men who were in the factories at the time. After a long shift in the mills and factories, they could be cleaned and cleansed, inside and out, by a Turkish bath. Carlisle’s Turkish baths were finally added in 1909. Sadly, the relocation of the main swimming pools in 2022 forced the closure of not simply the Turkish baths, but a community facility used by a loyal group of regulars—Barry, Iain, David, Richard and Keith, to name but a few—who knew of the baths’ physical and mental health benefits. On one visit just before its closure, I spoke with a young man who explained that, as a recovering alcoholic, his weekends were lonely because he could no longer go to the pub, but a couple of hours in the baths had been filled with the conversation he missed. Another said that the baths had kept him together after he and his wife separated, and another spoke of how they alleviated his asthma. Barry, a regular of more than 50 years, would often say that he could name half a dozen men who had not needed mental health treatment because the baths provided a space to unwind and talk. It has been three years since the closure of Carlisle’s Turkish baths, but the campaign and the charity that I started continue the work to secure a community asset transfer from Cumberland council and reopen them as an expanded centre for health and wellbeing. I pay tribute to Steve Yeates—

• 23 Mar 2026 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before I begin my brief speech, may I say how good it is to see my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) in the Chamber? We owe her a debt of gratitude for both introducing the Bill and piloting it through the House. She leaves behind—I was going to say large shoes, but that seems a bit rude—significant shoes to be filled, but I know they are shoes that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), is more than capable of filling, and I am very glad to see her in her place this evening. I wish to speak briefly about Lords amendments 11 and 61, which, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), clarify what we mean by a “relevant enforcement authority” and, in particular, clarify the duty that will be placed on that relevant enforcement authority to consider annually whether it is appropriate to carry out a programme of enforcement action. As has been said, we acknowledge, and know, that vaping can support adults who want to move away from smoking, but we nevertheless cannot ignore the rapid rise in youth vaping and the growing presence of illegal, non-compliant and counterfeit vapes and cigarettes in all our communities. That is why a robust, mandatory licensing framework is so urgently needed. The Bill will give the Government the power to introduce such a framework, and that can only be strengthened by a requirement for licensing authorities to consider annually the programme of enforcement. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) seemed to suggest, one of the strongest arguments for licensing is its ability to combat the sale of illegal cigarettes and vapes on our high streets. Local authorities and enforcement bodies have warned repeatedly that rogue sellers are flooding the market with untested, high-nicotine, incorrectly labelled or counterfeit products, and my constituency is no exception. Just a few weeks ago, Cumberland council trading standards seized 6,000 illegal cigarettes in raids, and that was in addition to the £20,000-worth of illegal tobacco and vapes seized last summer. The introduction of on-the-spot fines of up to £2,500 and the ability to revoke retailers’ licences entirely are therefore welcome. Mandatory licensing will also make it much easier to shut down dodgy shops that knowingly stock or distribute illegal vapes and cigarettes. Under the new framework, any premises found storing, displaying or supplying unregulated products will lose their licences, because licensing applies not just to the act of selling, but to the possession of regulated products for retail purposes. This means that enforcement officers will no longer have to rely on repeated seizures or warnings; they will have a fast, lawful route to closing down problem retailers for good. In short, mandatory licensing is not just another layer of regulation; it is a powerful tool to crack down on illegal vapes, remove bad actors from our high streets, and support safer and more responsible retailing. More important, it will give local authorities the powers they need to shut down dodgy shops quickly, decisively and permanently. I therefore welcome both the Lords amendments and the Bill as a step forward to cleaning up our high streets and ensuring that we have a healthier, happier country.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely incumbent upon any Government to carefully consider any issue. In this regard, I urge the Minister to approach the consultation with an open mind and not to have a predetermined outcome for the conclusion. For many, this proposal represents a far-reaching regulatory shift, with consequences that might not have yet been fully understood. The anxiety that has been expressed to me and other Members is not rooted in resistance to safety. My constituents want safe gun use. They want dangerous individuals to be prevented from accessing firearms. What they question is whether creating a larger, potentially more congested system will achieve those outcomes, or whether it risks the opposite by overwhelming the departments responsible for ensuring public safety and taking away these incredibly useful and effective pest control tools from farmers, landowners and pest control agents. There are other, more targeted and effective, steps that might be taken. Properly resourcing our police licensing teams, ensuring consistent national standards and rigorous application of the Home Office’s statutory guidance should be the priority, so that those who should never have access to a shotgun do not get one under any licence and those who use them responsibly in their work and on their land are not penalised for doing so. I therefore urge Ministers to ensure that any reform focuses on what will genuinely improve safety—properly resourced licensing teams, consistent national standards and measures that address illegal firearms—rather than imposing burdens on those who use shotguns responsibly for work, sport and conservation. Evidence, not symbolism, must guide our decisions. I encourage Members across the House to examine the proposal closely during the consultation to ensure that public safety is strengthened without causing disproportionate harm to rural communities.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Rural Mobile Connectivity · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for bringing forward this delayed but important debate. My constituency includes the very rural area of north Cumbria, bordering Scotland and Northumberland. It is beautiful, remote and, in parts, devoid of mobile coverage. The lack of mobile connectivity is a particular issue in winter months, as we have heard, when snow and wind block roads and bring down power lines. As has been said, the shutdown of the public switched telephone network means that a loss of power to landlines, coupled with a paucity of mobile coverage, now leaves many of my constituents not only without telephony, but without any means of letting their electricity distribution network know that they have no power at all. It is a year since Ofcom published the findings of its consultation on mobile RAN—radio access network—power resilience. I will forgive Members if they have not read it as I have. Currently, the regulator suggests a minimum back-up duration of just four hours for mobile RAN sites—the masts—and a minimum duration of one hour for battery back-up units for fixed-line phones, as we have heard. Last year, however, a power cut affecting the village of Kershopefoot, which sits on the border of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), lasted five days. I therefore think that a sensible and proportionate solution would be for Ofcom to require mobile networks to maintain a small fleet of electricity generators that could be used to power masts until the electricity grid can be repaired. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that point and an assurance that he will press Ofcom to go further on the issue of RAN resilience. I will turn to the factors that determine the ability of mobile network operators to improve and maintain coverage: network investment, planning policy and spectrum availability. The first factor is principally a matter for shareholders, but the Government clearly have a role in creating the right conditions for investment, safeguarding competition and removing the policy barriers to network expansion. That brings me to the second factor, which is planning policy. I strongly urge the Minister to engage constructively with Mobile UK on the reform of permitted development rights and the notice to quit regime, which can see mobile operators forced from sites before a new site can be built. That leaves the third factor, which is spectrum—a subject in which I take an unusual interest, having witnessed at first hand the contrasting approaches, and their consequences, of the Blair and Cameron Governments. The UK’s 3G spectrum auction in 2000 was designed not only to inject competition into the mobile market by reserving a licence for a new entrant, but to create a level playing field by preventing the incumbent networks from using their existing spectrum for 3G services. The effect was to create a level playing field and a competitive market for 3G services, with the result that the UK became the first country in the world to deploy a commercial 3G network. Prices fell, innovation grew and new services were spawned. As take-up grew, more spectrum had to become available for 3G and 4G services, but simply allowing the four networks that had legacy spectrum to reuse it for 3G services would not only give them a competitive advantage over the newer entrant, but distort competition between the incumbent networks that held different spectrum frequencies. Different frequencies mean different capabilities. In particular, lower frequency spectrum is essential for getting coverage in rural areas. The then Labour Government’s solution was to direct the regulator to take back the legacy spectrum and reallocate it to maintain a level playing field and maximise competition. Unfortunately, the 2010 election intervened before the legislation to direct Ofcom could pass, and in January 2011 the Cameron Government allowed the incumbent networks to use their 2G spectrum, creating, in the words of the new entrant, a “competitive distortion”—one that I argue has driven the consolidation in the market over the last decade, weakened competitive pressure on the networks to expand their coverage, particularly in rural areas, and left the taxpayer to pick up the tab for a market failure that was entirely avoidable. I urge the Minister, in matters of spectrum, to be more Blair and less Cameron, and ensure that this Government have a spectrum policy that supports a competitive mobile market that benefits every corner and field of our country.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Illegal Migrants: Pull Factors · Hansard source

  More

  Illegal immigration, illegal working and illegal trading frequently go hand in hand, and all too often manifest themselves in the proliferation of dodgy shops on our high streets. While I welcome the shop raids in my constituency last summer, without action to tackle illegality at source the police and trading standards face a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. Can the Minister please assure my constituents that this Government will redouble their efforts to clamp down on both illegal immigration and illegal working?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Royal National Institute of Blind People’s 2024 report, “Turned Out”, found that disabled people face significant barriers when it comes to casting their vote, a finding echoed by the Electoral Commission in its report last year. Both those reports informed my ten-minute rule Bill on this subject, which I presented to the House last year. Could the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make a statement on improving accessibility at our polling stations for disabled people ahead of this year’s elections?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the marketing, sale, and supply of electrically assisted pedal cycles that fall outside the class of electrically assisted pedal cycles prescribed under the Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations 1983 and of equipment capable of converting a pedal cycle into a such a vehicle; and for connected purposes. The Bill is without doubt a mouthful, and it may seem technical and dry, but at its core it is about safety, clarity and responsibility. It is about protecting pedestrians, other road users, lawful cyclists, constituents and our communities from vehicles that look like bikes but behave like motorbikes. It is about stopping the sale of illegal e-bikes and the kits that turn ordinary, everyday pedal bikes into illegal monster bikes. E-bikes, when they conform to the law, are a force for good. They mean cleaner journeys, better public health and less congestion. By law, e-bike motors should have a maximum continuous power output of 250 W and should cut out when the bike reaches 15.5 mph. Going faster than that is perfectly permissible without a motor. Indeed, I am told that for some people it is entirely possible—a fact that I am sure I will see at first hand when the Tour de France travels through my constituency next summer. But those speeds, as those athletes will demonstrate, will be reached without motorised assistance. The sad reality, as Members know, is that right now, as I speak, there are illegal e-bikes on the streets of our constituencies that are reaching dangerously high speeds. Those e-bikes and the conversion kits used to create them are being sold with batteries capable of reaching speeds far beyond 15.5 mph. A bike seized and tested earlier this month in my constituency of Carlisle found that the bike was capable of 37 mph. Another e-bike seized in my constituency was found to have a battery capable of achieving 56 mph. Nationally, police have seized e-bikes capable of 70 mph. These are not minor issues. These are illegal vehicles that can, and do, kill. Last year, in Australia, a pedestrian was killed after he was struck by an illegally modified e-bike. Last October, a 60-year-old woman was killed in New York by an e-bike capable of travelling at 30 mph. Last summer, in Greater Manchester, a 70-year-old woman was left in a coma and with life-changing injuries after being hit by an e-bike advertised with a top speed of 47 mph, and in 2024 an 86-year-old man from Lancashire was hit and killed by an illegal e-bike. We cannot continue to let this happen. These, frankly, are illegal, unregistered, untaxed monster bikes without MOTs. These bikes have become a menace not just on the streets of Carlisle, but in communities across the UK. Their speed and lack of traceability makes them the perfect accomplice in robbery, phone theft and drug dealing. Our local neighbourhood police teams have done a good job of seizing and crushing these illegal machines, but they are fighting a losing battle. Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner, David Allen, who is in the Public Gallery today, believes that the time has come to stop the problem at the source by banning the sale of these illegal e-bikes and the conversion kits that create them. I agree, which is why I am introducing the Bill. Online marketplaces and overseas suppliers sell high-powered e-bikes and conversion kits with minimal checks, scant safety information and no clear liability. Too often, buyers assume that a product is legal because the website does not say otherwise. We already accept that some dangerous items simply must not be sold to the public. We ban the retail sale of flick knives because they are capable of killing and causing serious injury; we restrict the sale of F4 fireworks to those who are trained to use them safely; and we ban the use, import and supply of asbestos-containing materials, because they can kill. Those bans are about removing from the market products that are known to harm and kill. Monster e-bikes harm and kill. The Bill is targeted and proportionate. It would continue to allow the sale and enjoyment of legal e-bikes, but it would shut down the sale and marketing of illegal monster bikes and the kits used to create them. It would give regulators and the police powers to seize and destroy non-compliant bikes and conversion kits at the point of sale, and it would create clear offences and penalties for retailers of illegal products. Cutting off the sale and marketing of illegal e-bikes would remove dangerous products before they reach our streets. The Bill recognises that enforcement must be paired with support. It would give trading standards bodies, the police and other regulators targeted powers to act against sellers and online marketplaces. It would require clear consumer information so that buyers are not misled into thinking that high-powered machines are road legal. It would also help riders who rely on e-bikes for work to continue to access safe, legal e-bikes. The Bill is a practical, evidence-led measure that is intended to reduce the harm we see in our communities, protect the vulnerable and make our streets safer. As I have set out, it draws on the same logic that led Parliament to ban the sale of other dangerous items. It must be the case that when a product is capable of killing or causing injury, and its sale cannot be reasonably regulated, it simply should not be sold. Let us be clear: lawful, safe e-bikes are part of our future. What the Bill would do it introduce measured, necessary steps to make our streets safer, to protect our constituents, and to stop the sale of monster e-bikes. I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Ms Julie Minns, Luke Akehurst, Liam Byrne, Anna Dixon, Tim Farron, Fabian Hamilton, Tom Hayes, Alex McIntyre, Jim Shannon and Bradley Thomas present the Bill. Ms Julie Minns accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 February, and to be printed (Bill 372).

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  Last Friday I held a community meeting with Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner, David Allen. Since his election just 20 months ago, he has been focused on taking those officers who were forced into the back room under the last Government and putting them back on the frontline. Can the Home Secretary please reassure me, and our police, fire and crime commissioner, that the reforms she has outlined today will continue to strengthen frontline policing, particularly in rural areas such as Cumbria?

• 22 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Sector: Import Standards · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentions food imports and illegal imports. Next month will be the 25th anniversary of the devastating foot and mouth outbreak. Nowhere knows better than my Carlisle and north Cumbria constituency just what happens when foot and mouth takes hold. Does my hon. Friend agree that illegal meat imports heighten the risk of animal diseases such as foot and mouth, and that we need a co-ordinated strategy that involves the Government, local authorities and local port authorities to ensure that we counter such biosecurity risks?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. One of my constituents was ripped off to the tune of £19,000 when the builder walked off the job part-way through. However, when they went to trading standards and the police, they were told that, because the work had begun, it was a civil and not a criminal matter. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to protect our constituents who are caught by that loophole?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Cross-border Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing this important debate. As the Member of Parliament for Carlisle and north Cumbria, I represent a region where the realities of geography often challenge the neat lines that we find on maps, and those drawn by policy and practice. For example, earlier this year, during a prolonged power cut that affected the village of Kershopefoot, to the north-east of Carlisle, staff at ScottishPower Energy Networks were somewhat surprised to discover, after I contacted them, that they served customers in England who had a Scottish postcode. When it comes to health, my constituents quite often face more serious issues. For some, their nearest GP might be in Scotland, but the nearest hospital is in England—in my case, the Cumberland infirmary. This can and does lead to issues. I acknowledge the Government’s excellent work to improve healthcare access across the UK and in my constituency. In Carlisle and north Cumbria we have seen real progress: waiting lists have been cut and the urgent dental centre that opened last year is beginning to address many of the challenges we experience with NHS dental care. Those meaningful steps forward were made possible by this Government, but progress must be matched by policy that works for everyone, and especially those who live on the edge of systems, maps and borders. One of my constituents, who lives in the northernmost part of the constituency, found himself facing a deeply troubling situation when he became very ill. He is geographically closer to Scotland and therefore registered with a Scottish GP. However, when he needed hospital care he was told he could not be treated at his local hospital in England—in Carlisle—because he was registered with a Scottish GP. Instead, he was advised to travel to Glasgow, a round trip of over 200 miles, rather than take the 40-mile trip to Carlisle. This is a man who lives in England, pays his taxes here and has his bins collected by an English local authority, and whose nearest hospital is in England, but he was told to travel to Glasgow for care—not because of clinical need or even capacity, but because of outdated guidance. Thankfully, after the intervention of his GP and other dedicated health professionals, he was able to receive the treatment that he needed locally, but his case should not have required such extraordinary effort. It should never have required the negotiation it took and should not have required escalation. It should have been common sense. The English guidance does not adequately cover cross-border scenarios, and I am told the Scottish guidance predates the creation of the integrated care boards altogether. I am very grateful to the Minister for Care for giving me his time a few weeks ago to discuss this issue. I know he recognises that this needs to be urgently resolved. I would welcome any update that I can share from the Minister today on whether the guidance is now to be reviewed and improvements are under way. We must ensure that all relevant healthcare providers are equipped with clear, up-to-date information, because we all want the same thing: a system that works for patients, wherever they live. This is not a question of politics, as we can see from the cross-party presence at this debate—although the absence of the SNP is notable. I am pleased to see my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), in his place. This is a question of practicality, compassion and, as the hon. Gentleman said, common sense. We must ensure that our healthcare system reflects the lived realities of our constituents, and not the lines on a map. I urge the Minister to take this issue forward with urgency. I stand ready to support any efforts to improve cross-border healthcare.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Property Service Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) for securing the debate and enabling Members across the House to give voice to our constituents, like mine in Carlisle, who are, quite frankly, fed up. They are fed up with being charged hundreds of pounds a year in estate management fees for services that are either not delivered or delivered poorly; they are fed up with asking for transparency and getting vague spreadsheets, instead of receipts for the services that they are told have been delivered; and they are fed up with being told that they have no choice, no voice and no way to challenge that. One of my first pieces of casework, after my election last year, concerned FirstPort, and one of the more recent cases concerned another estate management company, Gateway. They are different companies, but there was the same problem with charges for things like grass cutting, street cleaning and lighting maintenance. One might say that those charges are to be expected, but too often they are levied while the grass becomes overgrown, the rubbish is not picked up and the roads remain unlit. Quite rightly, residents then ask for proof of where their money has been going and, quite consistently, they are given a list of costs, not invoices—no evidence and no accountability. In some cases, the same service appears more than once under different names. It is confusing, opaque and unfair. I acknowledge the work done by the last Government and continued by our Government. I was pleased to see swift action in the early months of this Government to implement key provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. I welcome the Government’s wider programme of reform, removing the threat of forfeiture, tackling abuse by managing agents and implementing the Law Commission’s recommendations on right to manage, but we must go further, especially as we build new homes. The Government’s house building agenda is ambitious, and rightly so. We need more homes and we need them quickly, but we also need to ensure that when people move into those homes, they are not being ripped off by management companies they did not choose. It is not enough just to get the bricks and mortar down; we need to ensure that the regulation around property charges is constructed properly too. We need enforceable standards for transparency. If a company charges for a service, they must be required to show that it was delivered and provide proof of what it cost. If the grass becomes overgrown, the litter piles up and the roads remain unlit, residents should not be expected to pay. We also need a clear route to redress. At the moment, too many people feel trapped by being tied to a management company that they did not choose, with no meaningful way to hold it to account. Asking for reform is not about undermining the sector; it is about fairness, restoring trust and ensuring that when people buy a home, they are not buying into a system that takes advantage of them. We have made a start, but if we are serious about protecting homeowners, we need to finish the job and to bring cowboy estate management companies to heel.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Suicide Prevention · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for securing this very important debate. May 1997 is etched on my memory for two very different reasons: first, the elation of 1 May and the election of the first Labour Government in 18 years, and then, just a few weeks later, the death by suicide of a good friend. This debate is not just personal to me but is of great importance for far too many of my constituents. According to Department of Health and Social Care statistics, Cumberland has the second highest suicide rate in England. Over one in five adults in Carlisle have been diagnosed with depression, placing us sixth highest in England and Wales. My constituency is home to a large rural and farming population, and we know that rural isolation is a major contributor to poor mental health and suicide risk. I pay particular tribute to the work of the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Organisation, which provides tailored mental health support to our farming communities. I also highlight the work of field nurses across the rural north—specialist nurses who visit auction marts to support farmers, their staff andtheir families with their physical and mental health. Support groups are also making a huge difference. Andy’s Man Club, which has been mentioned, opened in Carlisle earlier this year, and has already welcomed more than 2,000 men who are seeking support and find the meetings a safe place to talk and share their experiences. I recognise the work of Mal Craghill in Brampton, to the north-east of the city of Carlisle. Until merging his Brampton Mentalk group with Andy’s Man Club last month, Mal ran the club for over two years. His leadership and honesty have helped so many men to feel less alone. I thank him for his work. Carlisle Happy Mums offers peer support for women experiencing post-natal depression, anxiety and other mental health challenges. Its work is compassionate, community driven and essential. Those are just a few of the excellent organisations that help our communities and the people in them to access the support that they need. We owe them all our sincere thanks. Suicide prevention must be a whole-of-society effort. That message was carried by the Baton of Hope when it came to my constituency last Sunday. I welcome the steps that the Government are taking to overhaul the Mental Health Act through the Mental Health Bill, and to invest in mental health in schools, with nearly 1 million young people gaining access to support this year. Those are important reforms, and I hope that they will be matched by continued investment in the community-based services that I have touched on. On occasions like this, I feel that our House and this Chamber are at their best. It is incumbent on us all to unite to ensure that, no matter where someone lives—be it in a community that is prospering or one facing hardship, or in a city, in a village or on a farm—they are able to access the support that they need, when they need it.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Borders and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and strongly welcome the enforcement action taken recently by UK Border Force, Cumbria police and local trading standards to crack down on illegal trading and illegal retail work in my Carlisle constituency. Will she reassure my constituents that there will be no let-up in that enforcement activity, and that the same rigour will be applied to migrant workers employed as delivery riders?

• 17 Jul 2025 · RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for putting on record that touching and beautiful tribute to the servicemen from his constituency. One of those who never came home was Flight Sergeant Charles Ross from my own Carlisle constituency. His records show him as serving in the far east, but we do not know whether he lived beyond VJ Day to make it home to his family. Another airman from the Carlisle area, Flight Lieutenant Rae Armstrong, survived and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his work. However, two other local men did not return. Flying Officer Ivan Cooke would be killed aged 34 in operations from Malta, and Flying Officer William Johnston was killed returning from a reconnaissance operation in his Spitfire in December 1944. He was just 22 years old. I know that many hon. Members here today, and those who are unable to join us, wish to pay tribute to the men who came from their constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) has asked that heroes such as Denis Herbert Vincent Smith, who remains missing after being shot down in 1942; Norman Stuart Cooper, who was killed in action in 1944; and Norman Charles Shirley, who was awarded the Distinguished Flying Medal for his wartime service, all of whom have a connection with Oxford East, be remembered too. I also wish to recognise the work of the photographic intelligence teams who supported the aircrews, whose names will also be included on the memorial. These men and women were crucial to the entire process. Without them, we would have had the 26 million photographs, but we would not have gleaned the intelligence that we did from them. Those men and women used a little-known branch of science called stereoscopy to turn the photographs into 3D images, from which they could decipher and interpret the intelligence contained within, giving the allies a crucial intelligence advantage over the Nazis. Among those who did that critical work were the legendary Constance Babington Smith, the actor Dirk Bogarde, and Sarah Churchill, the daughter of the then Prime Minister. Indeed, of the 630 photographic interpreters who will be included on the memorial, almost a third were women. That only serves to highlight how crucial the work of women was to the success of the entire operation. The work of the photographic reconnaissance unit was truly international, and the campaign team have worked hard to identify nationals from across the world—from Argentina to Trinidad, from Malawi to Ukraine, and from many more countries—who answered the call of the common cause against tyranny, and who bravely came forward to serve, flying unarmed operations and helping to shorten the war. How do we now look to recognise these efforts and sacrifices? Since the last Westminster Hall debate was held on this topic in 2021, the project has met and gained the formal support of former and current veterans Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Minister, who has engaged positively and wholeheartedly with this project and its supporters across Westminster. Across Parliament, the campaign has secured the support of more than 200 MPs from all parties, as well as 16 foreign embassies and high commissions. Formal Ministry of Defence support for the monument proposal was given by the then Defence Minister Baroness Goldie, and reaffirmed recently by Lord Coaker. Earlier this year, with ministerial support from within the Cabinet Office, a successful meeting was held with the Royal Parks authority and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, during which verbal confirmation of support for the monument and its location was given. Because the intelligence gained from these operations was used by the war Cabinet to such great effect, there seemed no more suitable a location to honour this work than just yards from the wartime underground Cabinet war rooms, where that intelligence was originally received. Following formal written support by the Ministry of Defence and Cabinet Office, along with confirmations of no objections received from the Treasury and the Government Property Agency, I am delighted to share that the project has now begun the formal planning stage. The monument is to be located in the grassed area outside the Treasury building, alongside the exit from the Cabinet war rooms. And what a monument it will be: traditional in appearance, yet utilising modern AI technology to bring to life the extensive resources collected by the project, this monument will engage visitors in a multi-language format to ensure that the individuals recognised are more than just a name on a wall—that their extreme sacrifice is known and that their work is never forgotten. What started as the recovery of a reconnaissance Spitfire from a Norwegian mountain in 2018 has grown into a truly global project of recognition. Among veterans, too, it has been warmly welcomed, although sadly their numbers have dwindled over the years. While some five survivors were known at the start of the campaign, it is sad to put on the record the passing of the last known RAF reconnaissance airman, Warrant Officer William Williams, of 681 and 684 photographic reconnaissance squadrons, who died in April this year, just a few weeks short of his 104th birthday. Today, there remains just one photographic interpreter, identified only recently, with whom the project will shortly meet. Because accuracy is key, the Spitfire AA810 project has gone to huge lengths to check and independently verify the identities of those who served. It is vital to the commemorative and educational aims of this campaign that all who served are recognised and nobody is left behind. Research into the service of the 635 photographic interpreters is ongoing. However, for the 399 mystery names from mostly lower ranks, publicly accessible records have been exhausted. I therefore come to my ask of the Minister, and I am sure he will be relieved to know that it is not a financial one. The project team is reaching the end of what it can do with publicly available resources. To confirm the details of the servicemen and women who were involved, the project requests an opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss a working arrangement with civil servants and military personnel. The team are fully aware of the need to protect personal data, but they would like to access limited information in order to confirm the identities of those who are eligible for inclusion on the memorial and, more importantly, to identify the partial names that have been collated. The answers lie only within the records of the Ministry of Defence, and the project hopes to propose a simple working solution that enables it expediently to complete this important task with minimal impact on Government resources. I would be incredibly grateful for the Minister’s consideration of that request. Finally, I commend the work of everyone in the campaign for bringing these stories to light and, most of all, of the brave individuals who served in the RAF unarmed reconnaissance units with such distinction. With this monument, I hope that their service and sacrifice will always be remembered.

• 17 Jul 2025 · RAF Photographic Reconnaissance Unit · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a genuine privilege to hear so many tributes and stories about those who served in the RAF unarmed reconnaissance units from so many constituencies. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), West Ham and Beckton (James Asser), North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) for their comments. I am really grateful to Opposition Members for their extremely thoughtful and kind comments about the people who came from their constituencies to serve our country so bravely. I pay tribute to the comments made by the right hon. Members for Tatton (Esther McVey) and Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his wonderful contributions to all our debates. I also thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), for sharing stories from her constituents. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), for his contribution, which brought to life the stories of the people who came from his constituency. I do think it is a little regrettable that, sadly, this debate, which was introduced to pay tribute to those who served in the photographic reconnaissance unit and to thank those who have for six years driven the AA810 campaign, was momentarily and unnecessarily diverted to score a cheap political point. I would like to return to the purpose of this debate, which is to pay tribute to those who served so gallantly, so bravely and so selflessly all those years ago. I cannot begin to imagine the absolute terror, which the hon. and gallant Minister spoke about, in that moment before take-off, knowing that they might not return home that evening. We can never thank enough those who did return and those who paid that ultimate sacrifice. We should also place on the record our thanks to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for the work that it does throughout the year to ensure that we have a permanent remembrance for all those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. Let me pause momentarily to thank two individuals from the campaign, Tony Hoskins and David Robertson, for all they have done in Parliament. We have heard this afternoon just how much it has meant to all of us that your contribution has been able to bring to life what happened in our constituencies over 80 years ago, and I thank you for that.